I feel no.2 is OK if the game hasn't started yet and will start 'tomorrow' of the time of speaking that line; whereas, no. 1 could very well mean the game should have started and finished before the time of the speaking.

Is this conditional sentence which was written by Kooyeen in response to a post/inquiry correct?

If I hadn't broken my leg last week, I would play the game tomorrow. But my darn leg is in a cast! Grrr...

As Goodman seemed to have said in the tread named 'Condiitonal statement', do you say 'would play' in the present doesn't go with 'tomorrow' of the future??

2nd is simply not standard:She tells me she will play the game tomorrow.converted to past goes to:She told me she would play the game tomorrow.will->wouldin such reported speech, when switching to past. Read Swan, Practical English Usage.

AnonymousI feel no.2 is OK if the game hasn't started yet and will start 'tomorrow' of the time of speaking that line; whereas, no. 1 could very well mean the game should have started and finished before the time of the speaking.

No. Whether the game has started has nothing to do with it. Whether the game is finished has nothing to do with it.You can use will or would, but would is standard and preferred.

AnonymousIs this conditional sentence which was written by Kooyeen in response to a post/inquiry correct?

If I hadn't broken my leg last week, I would play the game tomorrow. But my darn leg is in a cast! Grrr...

The conditional sentence is correct. It's called a mixed conditional: The first clause is in the past, the second in the future. Mixed conditionals are not as frequently used as some of the others.CJ